Election ’12

So, more than 19 months after four Americans –including our ambassador– died at the hands of al Qaeda allies in an attack on our consulate in Benghazi, part of the truth finally comes out: the White House political operation used the story of a video to protect President Obama reelection, sacrificing the truth, our national security interests, and any shred of decency owed the victims’ surviving families on the altar of his political needs.

Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.

One of the operative documents, which the government had withheld from Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, 2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor. (Disclosure: Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News, where I was employed until March.)

In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television network political talk shows.

The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

Remember, Obama had been claiming for months that al Qaeda was “on the run,” nearly beaten. It was one of his justifications for reelection: he had crushed our mortal enemy. Then they attacked our consulate and killed our personnel, and suddenly the whole narrative was about to fall like the house of cards it was.

This wasn’t a meeting of a group meant to deal with a foreign policy crisis. No, Rhodes was heading up a political damage control team. That’s where the priority was. Not in determining how this happened, not in pursuing our enemies, and certainly not in our Head of State and Commander in Chief taking responsibility, because that might have meant handing a cudgel to the Republicans. Jim Geraghty weighs in (emphasis added):

Yes, Rhodes’s speechwriting always focused in the foreign-policy realm. He was a longtime assistant to Lee Hamilton, then joined Obama as a speechwriter in 2007. But this guy’s not an expert on Libya. There’s no way he was in any position, from Washington, to overrule the assessment of the folks on the ground. He’s a message guy. And he quickly concluded – accurately – that the administration’s obvious ill-prepared presence in Libya, and failure to organize timely rescue efforts, on the 9/11 anniversary represented a serious threat to the president’s reelection. They needed a scapegoat; the video was the best option at hand.

That included, by the way, trampling the First Amendment rights of the video maker, who was hauled off in the middle of the night and pilloried in the press to play that scapegoat.

And before anyone says things were still unclear and they really thought the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video, check the dates. Rhodes’ email was dated the 14th; the attack happened on the 11th. By the night of the attack, within hours, they knew that it was a terrorist strike, not an out of control riot against a video:

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

But now we have the testimony of the general in charge of the combat command responsible for Benghazi that he, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarded this as a terrorist attack — within minutes of the attack beginning! Panetta and Dempsey then went to a previously scheduled meeting with Obama at which, we’re supposed to believe, they didn’t give their boss their considered opinion? They just let him believe the massacre happened because of some video few ever saw? That they let him and his advisers go on for weeks like this, when they knew the truth?

Garbage. It is inconceivable that Obama did not know that night that our consulate had come under terrorist attack.

And that was three days before Rhodes’ email, which can only mean this was a deliberate attempt to lie to the American people in order to save Obama’s (and Hillary’s) craven political rear ends.

PS: And this only answers one major question about the Benghazi massacre. Still left begging is the question of just where Obama was that night and what was his role, if he even had one. The question of Hillary’s accountability for her incompetence leading up to the disaster is a whole other matter.

Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.

A chastened president and Secretary of State Kerry, a year into his job, can yet succeed, and for the country’s sake, must succeed. Timing is of the essence.

That was the end of what he wrote. Make sure to read it from the beginning for examples he gives of the critical failures of both President Obama and former Sec of State Clinton. #MittRomneyWasRight about this President … all along.

No, Mitt Romney wasn’t the rock-ribbed conservative we wanted in 2012 but on key issues, especially the disastrous impact he predicted Obamacare would have on the American people, and his emphasis on how Russia and Syria were NOT our friends, he was absolutely right.

I still firmly believe that America would be in a better place now if Mitt Romney had been elected over Barack Obama.

Some people could watch that video and get depressed – but I say to let it MOTIVATE you to do everything you can to get the best candidates elected at all levels of government. Local, state, national, whatever. Barack Obama and his radicalized party of far leftists are doing exactly what he promised he and they would in 2008: “fundamentally transforming the United States America” – and most definitely not in a good way. Whatever “change” we needed, he was the last person this country should have chosen to implement it!

The results overall represent a sharp turnaround in fortune for Obama and his party, which just a month ago were ascendant over the Republicans in views of the budget dispute that led to a partial government shutdown. Today 45 percent of Americans call Obama “too liberal,” matching the high, and 46 percent say the same about the Democratic Party. And perhaps adding insult to injury, registered voters divide numerically in Mitt Romney’s favor, 49-45 percent, if they had a mulligan for the 2012 presidential election. While the difference between the two is within the poll’s error margin, Obama’s support is 6 points below his actual showing a year ago.

And almost all of this is traceable to the fallout from the Obamacare fiasco and from people eyes finally being opened about what a bunch of mendacious creeps the President and the national Democrats are. From another portion of the ABC poll:

Other ratings of the president’s performance have tumbled as well. He’s at career lows for being a strong leader, understanding the problems of average Americans and being honest and trustworthy – numerically under water on each of these (a first for the latter two). His rating for strong leadership is down by 15 points this year and a vast 31 points below its peak shortly after he took office. In a new gauge, just 41 percent rate him as a good manager; 56 percent think not.

This poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that the president’s personal image has suffered alongside his professional ratings. Fewer than half, 46 percent, see him favorably overall, down 14 points this year to the fewest of his presidency. Fifty-two percent now view him unfavorably, a new high and a majority for the first time since he took office. It may matter: Personal popularity can provide a president with cushioning when the going gets rough. Losing it leaves the president more vulnerable.

Obama’s personal popularity in spite of the public not liking many of his policies has always puzzled and frustrated me. It’s served as a shield for him in the past, but, as the poll shows, that shield is gone for now, and likely for good.

But the fallout hasn’t just hit Obama:

The poll produces evidence that the ACA could spell trouble for Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections. Americans by a 16-point margin, 37-21 percent, are more likely to oppose than to support a candidate for Congress who favors Obamacare. That’s opened up from an even score in July 2012. (Using an intensity rating – those who are “much” more or less likely to support a candidate who backs the ACA – it’s still 15 points negative, vs. 2 points last year.)

The health care law looks most politically hazardous in the states that backed Mitt Romney in 2012; there Americans by 3-1, 46-15 percent, say they’re more inclined to oppose than to support a candidate who favors the law. But the ACA’s no help even in the blue states that backed Obama; while the division is far closer, 31 percent in those states are inclined to oppose an ACA-linked candidate, vs. 25 percent who’d be more apt to support one.

And thus we see why congressional Democrats are panicking and starting to jump ship: things are bad enough for them now, but, when the employer mandate (1) kicks in starting in Fall, 2014, the ACA rollout might well turn the 2014 midterm into an anti-Democratic “wave election” that will make the 2010 results look like a ripple in a pond.

Why, yes. I think I will have another helping of schadenfreude, thanks!

PS: Turning back to Romney, I still maintain that, while he would have frustrated me at times as president, he would have been a far better Chief Executive than Obama — and a better man, too.

Footnote:
(1) The ABC poll shows people still favor the employer mandate. I suspect a large fraction of those have no idea that their nice group policies are on the block, too. Expect that number to tank fast next summer.

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

One Campaign Spot reader is a veteran of the Census Bureau, who finds some elements of the story believable, but is skeptical that this sort of dishonesty could be widespread within the organization:

I worked at the Census Bureau for 23 years and knew the people who ran the CPS Branch. It is true that the vast majority of Census employees support Obama but I have a hard time believing that they would risk their careers by deliberately manipulating the employment data. It is true that interviewers sometimes submit fake completed interviews (curbstoning) but this is usually due to pressures to meet a target of completed interviews or laziness or both. Even if there was a coordinated conspiracy to fake the unemployment numbers, doing it by having a lot of interviewers fake interviews seems to be an inefficient and risky way to do it.

Unless there is a lot more information out there that hasn’t been reported I would not believe this story. I say this as one of the few people I knew at Census who did not support Obama. I also admit that a lot of things I didn’t think possible have happened in this administration.

However, if any economic data was falsified, we can rest assured that the Obama administration will seek out the perpetrators, most likely rogue low-level employees acting on their own initiative in the Cincinnati office, just like in the IRS scandal.

If there is indeed a scandal and cover-up here, how much higher up did it go? Bring on the investigations & hearings, Congress!

President Barack Obama, center and Beau Biden, Attorney of Deleware, right, watch as his father Joe Biden is sworn in at the ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol during the 57th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, Monday, Jan. 21, 2013.
Photo credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

The look on Obama’s face as he looks at Biden is intriguing. Gotta wonder what he’s thinking there.

And for extra laughs from the VP on a day where conservatives weren’t laughing much at all, there is this:

“I’m proud to be president of the United States, but I am prouder to be — oh. . . I’m proud to be vice president of the United States. And I am prouder to be President Barack Obama’s vice president!”

— Joe Biden cracking up guests at the State Society of Iowa’s gala Saturday night with a classic gaffe — or, hmmm, just a 2016 Freudian slip? “Well, there goes that,” he laughed, amid lingering giggles in the crowd “Look, on a serious note. . . I guess I’m not going to get back to the serious note, am I?”

On a much more serious note, as the pictures of Obama being sworn in rolled in on Twitter, I found I was more annoyed by the photos of Chief Justice John Roberts onstage than I was Obama. I just can’t look at him in the same way I used to. The ObamaCare ruling, and all that …

This about sum’s up the nauseating tone of the fawning MSM coverage of our celebrity President’s second (and thank goodness – LAST) inaugural address today (via Eliana Johnson at NRO):

Barack Obama is perhaps the only modern president who has had the burden of swatting away comparisons between his own soaring rhetoric and that of our 16th president. You may recall that, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter David Maraniss gushed over the president’s remarks, writing, “People will long remember what Barack Obama said in Newtown,” and calling the speech “[Obama’s] Gettysburg address.”

Today, thanks to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, it took less than five minutes for the comparison to be drawn between President Obama’s second inaugural address and, well, all manner of things Lincoln. “It reminds me of another second inaugural, Lincoln’s, so much of Lincoln in that speech, from the Gettysburg Address to the second inaugural itself,” Matthews said. “He talked about the government that we want, which is infrastructure, education, regulation, all the good things, and then recognizing that government can’t solve all the problems.”

Oh, did I mention it might be a good idea to have a barf bag handy before watching it? Oops.

Our so-called “unifying” “healing” President was anything but today, and for those of you who didn’t watch (I’m with you) you’ll understand just how much the “middle of the road” mask is off when you read gush-fests from popular liberal sites that talked about how Obama laid out his “progressive vision” for America.

Expect more disturbing attempts at “fundamentally transforming America” from our far leftist President over the next four long years. And be prepared to push back twice as hard as we did during his first term. As I said last year, him being re-elected means he is not accountable to anyone outside of his base anymore because he doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected. And he doesn’t care if he takes down other “progressives” in the process of completely shedding his “compromiser in chief” mask. In fact, as long as he wraps his socialistic proposals in a pretty red bow “for the children”, he might not need to concern himself with down-ticket political fallout, because – as the last two Presidential election cycles have shown us – the American people, unfortunately, aren’t always so discerning when it comes to hollow, meaningless political rhetoric about “hope, change, and unity”, especially when it comes from a President who, alongside his staunchest supporters inside the media industrial complex and out, makes himself out to be the “Second Coming.”

DETROIT (WJBK) — The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city.

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.”

Young served as Detroit’s mayor for 20 years and served as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1977 to 1981.

Make sure to watch video of Watson’s remarks at that same link.

People should be outraged by this, but most won’t be. Because this is the era we live in now – where $$ and goodies and promised, especially by Democrats, in exchange for votes. In the case of Detroit, it’s especially notable, considering how Democrats touted over and over again how federal tax dollars going towards the auto industry supposedly helped “save” Detroit. Contrary to that, however, some reports suggest the city could go bankrupt by the end of the year. The reality of the matter is that Detroit was NOT “saved” by the feds – not by a long shot, which is, in part, why this city council member has her hand held out demanding “bacon” for the city in exchange for their overwhelming support for our celebrity President.

Obama, the “savior” of Detroit, didn’t really save anything – but the myth that he did sounds so much better than the cold hard reality. So, sure, let’s pony up even more taxpayer dollars to try and “bailout” this failing US city. Again. That’ll fix it. Just like it did before (not).

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) submitted a letter announcing his resignation from Congress to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday, according to a Boehner aide.

“For seventeen years I have given 100 percent of my time, energy, and life to public service,” Jackson wrote.

“However, over the past several months, as my health has deteriorated, my ability to serve the constituents of my district has continued to diminish. Against the recommendations of my doctors, I had hoped and tried to return to Washington and continue working on the issues that matter most of the people of the Second District. I know now that will not be possible.”

Jackson’s resignation comes amid reports that he is being investigated by the Justice Department for allegedly misusing campaign donations to redecorate his home.

Reports earlier this month said Jackson was negotiating a plea deal with federal investigators that would require him to resign from Congress, citing health reasons, and repay the campaign funds.

Jackson’s office has not commented on the reported plea talks.

[…]

Jackson easily won reelection in his heavily Democratic district. He released a robocall asking his supporters to stand with him as he dealt with his health issues but did not take part in any other campaign activities.

Jackson has faced pressure in recent days from many Democrats, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, to speak to his constituents and assure them that he would be able to continue serving effectively in Congress.

Both President Obama and Emanuel endorsed Jackson in his primary against former Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.) earlier this year.

If he’s truly ill, I hope he gets better but – as always – I question the timing.

Did the DOJ investigation on Jackson start before or after his primary? Just curious. In any event, the seat will likely stay Democrat (whether by appointment or by special election) as Illinois has this annoying habit of continually putting liberals – especially those of the corruptocrat variety – into public office over and over again. Oh well.

You’ve probably already seen this, but in case you hadn’t, Rep. West conceded to Patrick Murphy today, effectively ending his re-election bid:

For two weeks since Election Day, we have been working to ensure every vote is counted accurately and fairly. We have made progress towards that goal, thanks to the dedication of our supporters and their unrelenting efforts to protect the integrity of the democratic process. While many questions remain unanswered, today I am announcing that I will take no further action to contest the outcome of this election.

While there are certainly still inaccuracies in the results, and the actions of the St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County Supervisors of Elections rightly raise questions in my mind and for many voters, after much analysis and this past weekend’s recount in St. Lucie County, our legal team does not believe there are enough over-counted, undercounted or fraudulent votes to change the outcome of the election.

While a contest of the election results might have changed the vote totals, we do not have evidence that the outcome would change. Given the extremely high evidentiary hurdles involved in a successful challenge, I will not ask my generous supporters to help fund a drawn-out, expensive legal effort with little chance of success. Therefore, we will not contest the certification or challenge the seating of Congressman-elect Murphy.

Serving the people in the House of Representatives has been among the highest honors of my life, but this seat does not belong to me, or for that matter, to any individual. It belongs to the people.

West has served his country honorably, both on the battlefield and off of it. There is not a politically correct bone in his body. I admired his candor and his dedication to telling the truth, no matter how “offensive” it was to the political opposition. I also loved the fact that he refused to falsely play the race card against his opponents, unlike most of his fellow Congressional colleagues in the US House. He liked to rock the boat, because he know that was one of the few ways he could get people, including his fellow Congressional reps, talking about issues that really matter. He was, frankly, a breath of fresh air in an endless sea of status quo faces.

I hope his concession doesn’t mean this is the last we’ve heard from him. I think he’d have a great future as a commentator, speaker, writer — a motivator to conservatives. I remember how he electrified the crowd at CPAC in 2011 when he gave the closing address. We need more of that, especially as conservatives and the GOP continue to “regroup” after the disappointing 2012 election.